Judge Cannon has appeared confused by basic legal concepts and indulged the Trump defense team’s wildest arguments

Over the course of seven public hearings related to Donald Trump’s classified documents case, a picture has emerged of Judge Aileen Cannon sometimes appearing prepared for legal questions but at other times having difficulty comprehending even the simplest concepts.

In the view of prosecutors and several legal experts, her tendency to repeatedly ask the same question or miss the point of an argument is proof that the Trump-appointed judge is ill-suited to handle a trial that has already been delayed, repeatedly, by her willingness to grant hearings over the Trump team’s most far-fetched requests. The case’s slow progress, they argue, plays into Trump’s strategy of pushing it past Election Day, and then, if elected, stopping it from ever happening.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    5 months ago

    Haven’t people said there’s a way for Jack Smith to appeal for a different judge if it’s shown she isn’t doing her job? Why hasn’t he done that?

    • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because it is a Hail Mary option. He can appeal but doing so unsuccessfully ensures that Cannon switches from this passive help of the defense to being outright against the prosecution which makes things harder than they already are. A successful appeal still creates a delay in the trial because the new judge has to get up to speed.

      • Gumby@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think at this point she’s already shown that she IS outright against the prosecution.

      • takeda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s not like she is already against prosecution. I don’t believe it could be any more partisan than it already is.

        As for delay her last ruling essentially made it indefinite.

    • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 months ago

      If they said that, they’re wrong. There are very limited circumstances that allow an appeal to the 11th circuit and she hasn’t tripped those wires yet…mostly by not issuing rulings. Scheduling is not an appealable matter.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        5 months ago

        I may be wrong, but I think scheduling is an appealable matter, but only for the defense. Right to a speedy trial and whatnot.

        But yeah, it’s pretty obvious she’s waiting to dismiss the case once a jury has been selected so she can force a double jeopardy scenario.

        The justice department needs to come up with a new way to dismiss or punish federal judges who cannot remain impartial, or are so obviously abusing their positions.

        • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          According to the crowd at Lawfare not one single day has tolled on the speedy trial clock. So while you are correct in the abstract, we aren’t close to the trigger point for that to occur.

          • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Makes sense the defense wants to slow the trial down as much as possible, so I doubt they’d be pressing for a speedy trial. My comment was mostly pedantic as it isn’t something that the prosecution can really utilize.

            • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              Jack Smith was pressing for a speedy trial arguing that it’s the right of the people to see justice done equally as much as it’s a right of the defendant. We see how well that’s worked out.